Legal Developments: A Fistful of Hot Takes

Walking Out the Door at Paul, Weiss

Four top litigation partners at Paul, Weiss have walked out the, together with their associates, their paralegals, their secretaries, and their book of business. In my experience, this sort of thing happens all the time at the big firms, even without cowardly deals capitulating to a would-be tinpot dictator. I wish I were persuaded that the walkout was over the Trump deal—and that it presages severe harm to the Cowardly Nine firm—but if wishes were horses, we’d all take a ride.

And if you don’t like my hot take on the matter, then ask perplexity.ai “Does the departure of four litigation partners at Paul Weiss mean anything?” Their AI chatbot’s opinion is quite different from mine.

How Many Federal Officials Can Trump Fire?

According to statutory law, a president cannot fire, without cause, a member of the National Labor Relations Board or of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Trump did it anyway. The lower courts told him to reinstate the two individuals, pending a final decision on the merits. Over the dissent of the three liberals, the rest of the court ordered that, until the case is decided on the merits, the two fired officials can stay fired. 

The legal issues are a teense complex, and if you’re interested, check out this article from SCOTUSblog.

My hot take: A majority of the Supreme Court seems to be getting ready to shitcan a century of precedent, and to destroy the independent status of heretofore independent agencies like the Federal Trade Commission. 

What Else Happened to Team Trump in the Courts Last Week?

Nothing good for Trump. Harvard filed a new lawsuit against Team Trump, challenging the Administration’s refusal to allow any foreign students next year. The judge granted Harvard a preliminary injunction so fast that he barely had time to read the papers.

Another judge granted Jenner & Block’s request for a preliminary injunction against Trump. And a third judge ruled that Trump had acted illegally against the United States Institute of Peace. 

A Reminder About a Fundamental Rule of Constitutional Law

Finally, Prof. Mitchell Berman of the University of Pennsylvania reminds us that No, Trump can’t force his agenda on U.S. entities. They have rights: The government cannot withhold benefits because it doesn’t like how people exercise their rights.

Let Us Now Praise King & Spalding

Not to Mention Quinn Emanuel 

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan is a top ranked business litigation law firm. King & Spalding is a top corporate and litigation firm; one good source ranks them as #24. Here is the letter that two of their partners signed on behalf of Harvard and sent to Team Trump:

April 14, 2025

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Josh Gruenbaum

Commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service General ServicesAdministration

Sean R. Keveney Acting General Counsel

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

Thomas E. Wheeler Acting GeneralCounsel

U.S. Department of Education

Dear Messrs. Gruenbaum, Keveney, and Wheeler:

We represent Harvard University. We are writing in response to your letter dated April 11,  2025, addressed toDr. Alan Garber, Harvard’s President, and Penny Pritzker, Senior Fellow of the    Harvard Corporation.

Harvard is committed to fighting antisemitism and other forms of bigotry in its community. Antisemitism and discrimination of any kind not only are abhorrent and antithetical to Harvard’s values but also threaten its academicmission.

To that end, Harvard has made, and will continue to make, lasting and robust structural, policy, and programmatic changes to ensure that the university is a welcoming and supportive learning environment for allstudents and continues to abide in all respects with federal law across its academic programs and operations, whilefostering open inquiry in a pluralistic community free from intimidation and open to challenging orthodoxies,whatever their source.

Over the past 15 months, Harvard has undertaken substantial policy and programmatic measures. It hasmade changes to its campus use policies; adopted new accountability procedures; imposed meaningful discipline for those who violate university policies; enhanced programs designed to address bias and promote ideological diversity and civil discourse; hired staff to support these programs and support students; changed partnerships; dedicatedresources to combat hate and bias; and enhanced safety and security measures. As a result, Harvard is in a verydifferent place today from where it was a year ago. These efforts, and additional measures the university will be taking against antisemitism, not only are the right thing to do but also are critical to strengthening Harvard’scommunity as a place in which everyone can thrive.

It is unfortunate, then, that your letter disregards Harvard’s efforts and instead presents demands that, incontravention of the First Amendment, invade university freedoms long recognized by the Supreme Court. The government’s terms also circumvent Harvard’s statutory rights by requiring unsupported and disruptive remedies foralleged harms that the government has not proven through mandatory processes established by Congress and required by law. No less objectionable is the condition, first made explicit in the letter of March 31, 2025, that Harvard accede to these terms or risk the loss of billions of dollars in federal funding critical to vital research and innovation that has saved and improved lives and allowed Harvard to play a central role in making our country’sscientific, medical, and other research communities the standard-bearers for  the world. These demands extend notonly to Harvard but to separately incorporated and independently operated medical and research hospitals engaging in life-saving work on behalf of their patients. The university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights. Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government. Accordingly, Harvard will not accept the government’s terms as an agreement in principle.

Harvard remains open to dialogue about what the university has done, and is planning to do, to improve the experience of every member of its community. But Harvard is not prepared to  agree to demands that go beyond thelawful authority of this or any administration.

William A. Burck                                                         Robert K. Hur

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP                King & Spalding LLP

1300 I Street NW                                                        1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Suite 900                                                                     Suite 900

Washington, DC 20005                                              Washington, DC 20006

Harvard’s President to Mango Mussolini: Fuck You Very Much

Dear Members of the Harvard Community,

For three-quarters of a century, the federal government has awarded grants and contracts to Harvard and other universities to help pay for work that, along with investments by the universities themselves, has led to groundbreaking innovations across a wide range of medical, engineering, and scientific fields. These innovations have made countless people in our country and throughout the world healthier and safer. Over the last several weeks, the federal government has threatened its partnerships with several universities, including Harvard, over accusations of antisemitism on our campuses. These partnerships are among the most productive and beneficial in American history. New frontiers beckon us with the prospect of life-changing advances—from treatments for diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and diabetes, to breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, quantum science and engineering, and numerous other areas of possibility. For the government to retreat from these partnerships now risks not only the health and well-being of millions of individuals, but also the economic security and vitality of our nation.

Late Friday night, the administration issued an updated and expanded list of demands, warning that Harvard must comply if we intend to “maintain [our] financial relationship with the federal government.” It makes clear that the intention is not to work with us to address antisemitism in a cooperative and constructive manner. Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating antisemitism, the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the “intellectual conditions” at Harvard.

I encourage you to read the letter to gain a fuller understanding of the unprecedented demands being made by the federal government to control the Harvard community. They include requirements to “audit” the viewpoints of our student body, faculty, staff, and to “reduc[e] the power” of certain students, faculty, and administrators targeted because of their ideological views. We have informed the administration through our legal counsel that we will not accept their proposed agreement. The University will not negotiate over its independence or its constitutional rights.

The administration’s prescription goes beyond the power of the federal government. It violates Harvard’s First Amendment rights and exceeds the statutory limits of the government’s authority under Title VI. And it threatens our values as a private institution devoted to the pursuit, production, and dissemination of knowledge. No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.

Our motto—Veritas, or truth—guides us as we navigate the challenging path ahead. Seeking truth is a journey without end. It requires us to be open to new information and different perspectives, to subject our beliefs to ongoing scrutiny, and to be ready to change our minds. It compels us to take up the difficult work of acknowledging our flaws so that we might realize the full promise of the University, especially when that promise is threatened.

We have made it abundantly clear that we do not take lightly our moral duty to fight antisemitism. Over the past fifteen months, we have taken many steps to address antisemitism on our campus. We plan to do much more. As we defend Harvard, we will continue to:

  • nurture a thriving culture of open inquiry on our campus; develop the tools, skills, and practices needed to engage constructively with one another; and broaden the intellectual and viewpoint diversity within our community;
  • affirm the rights and responsibilities we share; respect free speech and dissent while also ensuring that protest occurs in a time, place, and manner that does not interfere with teaching, learning, and research; and enhance the consistency and fairness of disciplinary processes; and
  • work together to find ways, consistent with law, to foster and support a vibrant community that exemplifies, respects, and embraces difference. As we do, we will also continue to comply with Students For Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ruled that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act makes it unlawful for universities to make decisions “on the basis of race.”

These ends will not be achieved by assertions of power, unmoored from the law, to control teaching and learning at Harvard and to dictate how we operate. The work of addressing our shortcomings, fulfilling our commitments, and embodying our values is ours to define and undertake as a community. Freedom of thought and inquiry, along with the government’s longstanding commitment to respect and protect it, has enabled universities to contribute in vital ways to a free society and to healthier, more prosperous lives for people everywhere. All of us share a stake in safeguarding that freedom. We proceed now, as always, with the conviction that the fearless and unfettered pursuit of truth liberates humanity—and with faith in the enduring promise that America’s colleges and universities hold for our country and our world.

Sincerely,
Alan M. Garber